Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 694
Instituted on : 01.12.2021
Decided on : 16.03.2023
Sushil age 43 years, wife of Sameer Gambhir, Resident of 327, old Housing Board Colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Through its Manager, Office at 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon center, Golf Road, Sector 43 DLF Ph.-V, Gurgaon, Haryana. Service through Service Center B2x Service Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.l jain Mansion, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
- Reliance Digital Showroom at Near Mansarover Park & Bikaner Sweet Rohtak through its Manager, District Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.Yogender Dalal Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a Samsung Mobile A71 for Rs.17697/- on 19.09.2021 from opposite party No.1. The display and internet of the said mobile phone was not working properly so the complainant approached to the service center of respondent no.1 to resolve the problem and the official of service center did not take any heed to the request of complainant. . The official submitted that there is a manufacturing defect in the said mobile and respondent no.1 company has instructed them for not entertaining the said model of Samsung A71. The complainant had purchased the said phone being trusty brand of assurance of quality of product and service. But complainant was very much dissatisfied with the product of respondent no.1. Complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 & 2 and requested them either to replace the product or to refund the price but any heed was not paid to his requests. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.17697/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of mobile phone and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation towards harassment and deficiency in service, to impose penalty of Rs.10000/- towards mental agony and suffering and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant..
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that as per records of the answering company, the complainant has not registered any complaint to the service center of answering company. The Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has an online system to enter all claims/complaints vide IMEI/Sr. no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per limited details mentioned in the complaint, no complaint no. or valid contract no. has been provided by the complainant and for the reason, no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service center of the answering opposite party and present complaint has been file just to grab benefits illegally from the answering opposite party. No cause of action arises in favour of complainant and there is no defect found in the unit. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant had purchased the above referred product from the store of opposite party no.2. The opposite party No.2 is not at all responsible for any defect as alleged by the complainant in the product purchased from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 who is the manufacturer of the product is only responsible for the alleged product, if any & retailer i.e. opposite party No.2 is not at all responsible for removal of the alleged defect. On merits it is denied that opposite party no.2 ever stated that the said Model of Samsung is a defective model. Opposite party no.2 neither rendered any service and nor was responsible to provide any service. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.07.2022. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. R1 and closed his evidence on dated 14.03.2023. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A and closed his evidence on dated 04.11.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.17697/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. The grievance of the complainant is that the alleged mobile phone was defective from the very beginning and there was problem of display and internet in the alleged mobile phone. She contacted the service centre of opposite party No.1 for the alleged defect but the officials of service centre told that there was manufacturing defect in the alleged model A71 and they refused to entertain the complaint of complainant. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party no.1 is that no complaint was ever registered in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never registered any complaint with any of the service center of the company.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, officials of the service centre refused to entertain the complaint of the complainant, due to which no complaint was registered in the online system of the company. In this regard it is observed that when complaint was not entertained by the officials of service centre, then how the complainant can produce the job sheet before this Commission. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of service centre and opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 20% depreciation on it i.e. to pay Rs.14157/-(Rs.17697/- less Rs.3540/-)
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.14157/-(Rupees fourteen thousand one hundred and fifty seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.12.2021 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.03.2023.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
